Thanks for the correction if it is itself correct.

“bashed up” implies … multiple injurious strikes.

It has not been as widely publicised, that
Brooke did NOT BRING THE COMPLAINT, but the police did.
Newton MAY have only shoved her in frustration at provocation …

You cannot say “bashed up” if it was
‘one shove in the chest’ accompanied
by a lot of loud swearing that made neighbours call the cops.

Newton’s punishment has been meted out beyond the Court, the juvenile criminal’s has not.

I think what the judge is is definitely defensible in theory given the law which says that “A child aged 10 years or older, but under 14 years old, can only be criminally responsible for an offence if the child knows that his or her conduct is wrong.” But to take that as an instruction that the Crown must prove the child’s knowledge of his own wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt (implying a presumption that it does not) seems cloud cukoo land to me. How do you show knowledge of wrongdoing?

Kids much younger than 10 – kids who are seven will generally know if they are doing something wrong. If we’re in doubt they show it by trying to hide their wrongdoing as this guy did. I wouldn’t mind some consideration of age coming into the question of sentencing, but to suggest this guy doesn’t know that sexually assaulting someone at knife-point is wrong (while someone stands watch in case someone sees them) – well it seems completely absurd.

How would you prove that someone knew it was wrong? If they said they knew it was wrong they might be fantasising. I have no idea how you prove that beyond reasonable doubt except in the commonsensical way that most people do know that stealing, raping at knifepoint is wrong – and this in effect erects a rebutable presumption that people who are ten know that stealing, and violence is wrong.

On your second paragraph I guess I agree, though I’m not too sure it’s germane. Decisive action of some kind should be taken and it was not. What kind of signal does the acquittal send to police, to parents of victims etc. Of course if existing punishments or treatments make things worse in the future for the boy and his victims then we should be trying to do other things, but if we can’t take decisive action and sentencing is decisive action, then that’s about as bad as it can get it seems to me.

As for ‘truth in sentencing’ legislation – yes it’s a pretty poor situation to remove the judge’s discretion to impose lighter sentences. But it’s pretty easy to see how it comes about with judgements like this. I’d actually prefer truth in sentencing to acquitting those who confess to sexual assault at knife-point.

Presumably your motivation is not that you’d like to see the boy punished, but that it does neither the perpetrator nor the victim any good for the court to pronounce that no crime took place. I agree, and it also seems a missed opportunity for a bit of badly-needed ‘counselling, psychiatric assessments [and] rehabilitative treatment.’

I’m assuming that the judge would have had the discretion not to impose a custodial sentence. On the other hand, if the ACT has some idiotic ‘truth in sentencing’ legislation, maybe he acquitted him just to keep him out of some awful juvenile correction centre.

It was said, no doubt apocryphally, that on an appeal from one of his judgments, counsel for the appellant began his submissions by saying, “My lords, this is an appeal from a judgment of his Lordship, Mr Justice Kekewich, but there are other grounds as well.”

I can’t think now what made that come into my mind.